566 replies to this topic

[Jacmac]

DanNashe, on 03 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

(Only reason for arms is xl. AC20 in arms automatically locks arm to torso like YLW. The 10 percent thing is a duct tape fix for 2 armed mechs with different arm actuators in each arm).

The reason I want ballistic arms in an assault mech is for Gauss in each arm (weight and explosion location). With energy in one or both torso locations, you have a cool running dual PPC/dual Gauss combo. Might have to use an XL due to the weight.

[Sepertar]

Now your quick 80 ton assault mech has jumpjets

[Helsbane]

DanNashe, on 03 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

King crab can't be done without rewriting the code. Shared location criticals is not shared.

When is the mauler available?

And a double AC 20 100 ton assault would probably make the atlas redundant. What does the mauler weigh?

(Ah. It weighs 90 tons. 2 ballistic slots in each torso. Just need some variants. Whi wants xls in an assault anyways?).
:-).

(Only reason for arms is xl. AC20 in arms automatically locks arm to torso like YLW. The 10 percent thing is a duct tape fix for 2 armed mechs with different arm actuators in each arm).

Victor should allow double ac 20 though, albeit one will be in the torso, good enough, and the only reason to take a victor. Bigger 2 ac20 mech might ruin that (although popboom does amuse me.... jjs cool).

PGI has always felt free to ignore 'cannon' issues whenever they see fit, so split criticals can easily be overlooked and reworked into a standard mech format the game uses. It always bothers me when people use the whole 'cannon' excuse for why we'll never see things when MWO is so far from 'cannon' it's not even remotely funny anymore. This version is a modern homage to BT and MW, using whatever the devs see fit instead of TT rules or hard and fast technical readout data. Let it go already.

[Pac Man]

Helsbane, on 03 June 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

PGI has always felt free to ignore 'cannon' issues whenever they see fit, so split criticals can easily be overlooked and reworked into a standard mech format the game uses. It always bothers me when people use the whole 'cannon' excuse for why we'll never see things when MWO is so far from 'cannon' it's not even remotely funny anymore. This version is a modern homage to BT and MW, using whatever the devs see fit instead of TT rules or hard and fast technical readout data. Let it go already.

They stick to canon on some issues pretty firmly, like the timeline. They also attempt to stick to canon rules where ever they can. They haven't thrown the book out, they're just trying to make a Tabletop game into a Computer game, which requires some sacrifices and some adjusts to balance. I can't even imagine how crap this game would be if they stuck to TT rules precisely. Also... canon, not cannon.

[Helsbane]

Pac Man, on 03 June 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

They stick to canon on some issues pretty firmly, like the timeline. They also attempt to stick to canon rules where ever they can. They haven't thrown the book out, they're just trying to make a Tabletop game into a Computer game, which requires some sacrifices and some adjusts to balance. I can't even imagine how crap this game would be if they stuck to TT rules precisely. Also... canon, not cannon.

At least I can blame the migraine for spelling errors

[Xelchon]

Don't wanna see anything with the name Victor after reading the books. Just saying. The Zeus would have been a better choice in my opinion; though ill be kicking IS rears with my Timber Wolf or Summoner anyway. The artwork however; is very nice. Good Job design team.

[Anjian]

I am really happy about the Victor, but would have preferred to see the Banshee or the Zeus.

[Iron Savior]

General Taskeen, on 03 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

You seem mad. Canon-wise, fluff is fluff.
Back on Topic, yeh Victor Mech!

This is a pretty basic summary of your post. Why waste your own time typing all that out, and my time for having to read it, if that's all you had to say?


Your post does nothing but basically agree with me - that lore wise mechs are a waste and 21st century MBTs are vastly superior. By pointing out that aircraft had a "field day" proves nothing, as this is always the case with just about any aircraft vs land vehicles. One has full 3D movement, the other does not. Gee I wonder which does better in combat situations.

None of this is 100% relevant to the discussion.


If battlemechs were as real as BT lore, no one would be boned but ******** countries like NK and Iran whom are vying for technological and military supremacy. First world nations would see that mechs are a waste of resources and cease any serious development or intent to field technologies; they'd be reduced to an R&D role for excess funding. Meanwhile those previously mentioned countries would keep trying, cuz, just maybe if we strap a giant gun to a walking tank, it'll turn the tide of battle. (it won't.)

This is entirely comparable to the current modern day theme of things; Iran and NK keep failing with nuclear technology, while 1st world nations realize that holding nukes is the worst thing a country can do. (Any country that fires a single nuke will see itself eradicated by the entirety of NATO and the UN, for instance; this ignores any upkeep they require as well as media backlash for having them) And yet they keep trying.

[POWR]

Iron Savior, on 01 June 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

People are not capable of firing or even holding a minigun, the recoil would spin you right round before tearing your arm off, and the battery powerrequired would weigh dozens of pounds alone. However, people are capable of firing accurately when aiming down sights, using singular or burst fire, even if they're on the move (not a sprint). So your comparison is ridiculous and irrelevant.

this guy begs to differ. You might know slightly more than that other guy, but you don't really know everything you're saying.

[C E Dwyer]

0okami, on 29 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Well the thing is...
3 x Gauss is 45 tonnage.
Then a 300 XL to support that would be 15,5 tonnage onto the 45 making it 60,5
that leaves you 19,5 tonnage to play with.
You take 4 tons of ammo - 15,5 tonnage left.
Put 15,5 tonnage as armour then you have 480 points of armour.

Now... this setup will eat 33 crit slots(37 with the ammo)... thats out of 53 possible slots - that leaves 20 slots open.(16 with ammo)
meaning u can get endo steel which requires 14 crit slots - this gives you an additional 4 tonnage tp play with again (since the mech is 80 tonnage)

That means a total of 6 tons of Gauss ammo (since we just added 2 tons of ammo)
and 2 medium lasers.
Leaving you at exactly 80 tonnage
with 3 x Gauss + 2 M lasers
with a 300 XL - making you move 60,7 or 66,8 with speed tweak. (a little faster than most standard heavies and more than 10 kph faster than a stock Atlas.)

Spoiler

Luckily the Victor model you are referring - the VTR-9A1 - has its 2 extra balistic slots in the legs meaning it can only be machineguns or AC/2's at best... :b
THANK KERENSKY ITS NOT THE L/R TORSOS!

Edit: cuz engrish is hard :3

Standard HS then ?

not that guass generate much heat, its just an ask

[C E Dwyer]

Dawnstealer, on 03 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I'm just curious what's on the drawing board past the Flea.

pesticide

[Dan Nashe]

I think the split crit thing was pgi's explanation in an Ask the Devs post or three. I.e., it's something they've chosen to honor. Not my own personal reasoning. :-). Also land vehicles might be able to beat aircraft with truly long range superspeed weapons or lasers. See Ringo's books. *If you can see it, you can kill it" weapons technology could in theory trump maneuverability of aircraft if stealth tech can't make planes invisible. And in theory super fast point defense could trump guided or missile munitions. (In theory a 31st century laser or other hyperfast projectile could shoot down an artillery shell a klick out or any other munition that needs to arc.

Of course, if space travel were feasible, planetary bombardment would trump any large groundbound weapon system like an MBT. Another game of paper-rock-kinectic bombardment!

But for our purposes, we must assume that com puting power is stuck at 1980 levels and math is far too hard for good indirect fire and myomers are just that super dee duper that they trump wheels :-). And clearly armor technology has vastly outpaced weapon technology, .... and just all around we can agree battletech is giant robot fantasy so stop asking questions!

[SgtKinCaiD]

Please, make it possible to field 4 UAC5 on this beast !

[Strum Wealh]

SgtKinCaiD, on 04 June 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Please, make it possible to field 4 UAC5 on this beast !

For that, one would again turn to the VTR-9A1 and hope that PGI implements it with something like:

• RA: x2 ballistic hardpoints [x1 AC/20]
  
• RT: x1 ballistic hardpoint [x1 Machine Gun (moved "up" from Right Leg)]
  
• LT: x1 ballistic hardpoint, x1 missile hardpoint [x1 Machine Gun (moved "up" from Left Leg), x1 SRM-4]
  
• LA: x2 energy hardpoints [x2 Medium Lasers]

Here is the record sheet, for those interested in the design's layout.

[kesuga7]

This looks like a big commando

commando and victor side by side to the last!

[Ordate]

kesuga7, on 04 June 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

This looks like a big commando

commando and victor side by side to the last!

Kind of what Im worried about. Let me get a big mac and a super sized commando... Really hope they take some artistic freedom with it or make it look like the later design.

[Doktor Totenkopf]

Dont get your hopes up high guys, you still might get quickdrawed 2 weeks before release.

[aniviron]

Cathy, on 02 June 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Its not going to replace any current ones, as it can't brawl as well as the big ones it can't carry as many energy mounts as the Awesome, (though I think those that complain about the awesome, are people of my ability and not much better, as I've seen well piloted ones rip through teams)

What is with people saying that the Awesome is balanced vs victor because the awesome has more energy mounts. First off, I would bet you a month's salary that every victor has as many hardpoints as an awesome or more; most have seven, the only one with more is the 9M and four of those are in the CT, which is some kind of cruel joke. I can't possibly imagine the number of hardpoints on the Victor being smaller, given that it carries a similar weapons payload, and there has been a pretty consistent upward trend in the number of hardpoints with every newly released mech. And really, having more energy hardpoints makes the mech better? Really? Boating 9 medium lasers is great on a medium mech, but it's awful on an assault, and anything heavier is impossible to boat unless you're willing to shut down every two shots.

[SgtKinCaiD]

Strum Wealh, on 04 June 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

For that, one would again turn to the VTR-9A1 and hope that PGI implements it with something like:

• RA: x2 ballistic hardpoints [x1 AC/20]
  
• RT: x1 ballistic hardpoint [x1 Machine Gun (moved "up" from Right Leg)]
  
• LT: x1 ballistic hardpoint, x1 missile hardpoint [x1 Machine Gun (moved "up" from Left Leg), x1 SRM-4]
  
• LA: x2 energy hardpoints [x2 Medium Lasers]

Here is the record sheet, for those interested in the design's layout.

You just made my day !

[MentalPatient]

Funny, I though 19 comes before 20.